Tag: history

Constitutional Amendment 13

Post author By David
Post date July 20, 2009
No Comments on Constitutional Amendment 13

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

The Thirteenth Amendment is about as straightforward as any of the first ten amendments (I find it interesting to notice that the most obvious and natural amendments tend to be the shortest).

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

While there is nothing that I would dare add to that amendment and I doubt that anyone needs a lesson in the context behind its adoption I do wonder how our nation might be different if the issue of slavery had been resolved by the process of adopting this amendment rather than fighting a war before then adopting this amendment.

I would not suggest that the issue would have been “resolved” by 1865 even to the degree that it was with the Civil War, but I would not be surprised if the outcome would have been to more completely lay to rest the prejudices that were so openly accepted 100 years later and which we still feel among our society today. (No, electing a black president does not prove that we have no racism or bigotry remaining in our society – in case there was anyone who entertains such a notion.)

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history, questions

culture

Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address

Post author By David
Post date July 17, 2009
No Comments on Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address

I was tempted not to include Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address among my review of founding documents, but I have become very interested in the parallels between the struggles over slavery and some of the struggles of our day. One question I asked as I read it again was, “have we learned anything in the last 150 years about how to deal with a peculiar and powerful interest within the nation?”[quote] I could not say whether or not we have learned that lesson, but I am confident that we will have occasion(s) in the future to find out whether we have learned that lesson.

I was reminded as I read it that having conflicting opinions and resolving on a uniform course of action while we hold differing perspectives on an issue is a universal and eternal aspect of having an existence endowed with individual liberty – we must learn that lesson individually and as a nation so that we can always say as Lincoln did (whatever the issue we face):

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. (emphasis added)

Tags civic participation, documents, history, insights, questions, thoughts

General

The Gettysburg Address

Everyone should already be familiar with The Gettysburg Address and have a basic understanding of the context in which it was crafted and delivered. I don’t think there is much I could have to add to that understanding, but I submit that the basic message of the address is still applicable today and that with a bit of rewriting it would be perpetually relevant to any free society. Here is what it could say to anyone at any time in any country where the government recognizes that it truly does derive its just powers from the consent of the people:

Our fathers brought forth a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great struggle, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. The brave men and women, living and dead, who have struggled for the liberty we have now have given us a consecrated history which we must never forget. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have thus far advanced. It is for us to be ever dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave so much — that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall never perish from the earth.

Tags documents, history

General

The Emancipation Proclamation

Post author By David
Post date July 14, 2009
No Comments on The Emancipation Proclamation

After 17 months of what had been expected to be a short war, Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation and gave a 100 day grace period before it was to be effective. I remember being taught that this was a publicity stunt with no effectiveness because it only applied to states that were in rebellion. I think that is too simple a view of what Lincoln was trying to accomplish. I think it would be more accurate to say that it was a threat – with possibly a small hope that it might convince some in rebellion to end their fight against the union in order to keep their slaves before the proclamation took effect.

The goal was not to start armed rebellions within the South. In fact, what Lincoln said to those who would be freed was:

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

I believe that the proclamation could be summed up as “things will be worse for rebels who refuse to come back and rejoin the nation within 100 days.” The effort was to end the war more than to free the slaves.

Tags documents, history, liberty

General

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address

Post author By David
Post date July 13, 2009
No Comments on Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address

Context is everything so I thought it very appropriate that today was the time for me to review Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address right after reading State Sovereignty and the Senate with its review of the damage to federalism that was a result of the passage of the 17th amendment. The casket of federalism was virtually sealed by the 17th amendment but a major step in weakening this important structure in our system of government came because of the Civil War which many people blame more or less on the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. Lincoln was very much aware of how his election was viewed among the Southern states as seven of the then thirty-six states had announced their secession before his inauguration. It was because of those secessions that so much of this address was given for the purpose of calming their fears while asserting his intention to not recognize their secession. It failed to calm or reclaim any states, but it contains some valuable food for thought as we try to restore the foundations of the liberty that was protected by the Constitution. I’d like to review some of his statements from the speech with a view to our present circumstances.[quote]

Quoting from the party platform:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend;

Today we have a federal government that dictates in large measure how and where to build roads and other forms of transit (I’m not just talking about the interstate system here), what kind of medical care should be provided at government expense (and who should be aligible to receive it), what forms of energy should be pursued, and they hope to define what kind of identification states should issue for official purposes. That’s just a short list of federal intrusions upon state control over state domestic institutions off the top of my head.

All members of Congress swear their support to the whole constitution

This is still true today. Sadly it would seem that the majority of the members of Congress should be fired (replaced in elections) and charged with perjury based on their implementation of their oath of office.

Lincoln makes a compelling argument for the perpetual nature of the nation which we should consider today anytime we hear or engage in speculation on the subject of secession:

if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it — break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

. . .

It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, — that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void

This is not to say that curcumstances could never warrant the breaking of the perpatual union, but to do so peacably and legally would require the consent of the whole government as well as the desire of the seceeding state(s). Lincoln put it this way:

If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other.

This absolute truth is the reason that we can predict the coming of a crisis on some issues – we are able to see instances where neither the majority nor the minority are willing to compromise of acquiesce. Whether we find ourselves in the majority or the minority on any given issue we must remember that:

A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks, and limitations, and always changing easily, with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that rejecting the majority principle, anarchy, or despotism in some form, is all that is left. (emphasis added)

I think that Lincoln captured the essence of what the Constitution was designed by the founding fathers to ensure:

While the people retain their virtue, and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government, in the short space of four years. (emphasis added)

The question will always remain for each succeeding generation – do the people today retain both their virtue and their vigilance?

Tags amendments, documents, history, secession

culture

Lincoln’s House Divided Speech

Post author By David
Post date July 2, 2009
No Comments on Lincoln’s House Divided Speech

I had never before read Lincoln’s House Divided Speech. Considering that it came in the very early days of the Republican party it could have been applied to or derived from the split between the Republicans and the Whigs and not simply the nation as a whole. Here is the heart of what most people know of the speech:

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Lincoln explores the recent history the slavery debate in his speech and I was surprised to find some startling parallels to the gay marriage debate we are currently having in this country. (Some people may not believe me when I say that I started reading this speech with no thought of this issue.)[quote] Here are the parallels I saw from the systematic progress of the pro-slavery movement in the prior four years.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state constitutions and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition.

More than 30 states currently prohibit gay marriage by statute or amendment (compared to 6 that allow it) and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a congressional action meant to ensure that states cannot be forced to accept gay marriages from other states.

The Nebraska Bill stated:

It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into an territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people there-of perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.

It was passed without a proposed amendment that would have explicitly stated that the people in a given territory could outlaw slavery within their territorty. Today it is the gay marriage opponents who say “let the states decide” but if the gay marriage advocates get DOMA repealed (as they hope to do) they will be the ones making that argument.

Lincoln sums up the situation of the four years prior to his speech by saying:

. . . when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

I believe that Lincoln was right that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Today I believe that neither the Republican party nor this nation can endure permanently with part allowing gay marriage and part denying it. I do not know whether to expect the party to fall; but I do expect that if it does not fall it will be because it ceases to be divided. It must fall or become all one thing, or all the other. After the issue plays out in the party it will then have to be resolved in public policy although the chances of the nation splitting and falling over the isue are lower than the chance that the Republican party splits (as the Whigs did in Lincoln’s time) over this issue.

Tags documents, gay marriage, history, parties, Republican

National

The Monroe Doctrine

I remember learning about The Monroe Doctrine in history classes – mostly about the interpretation of it called Manifest Destiny. I found it enlightening to review some background surrounding this speech to Congress. In Wikipedia the doctrine is summed up like so:

President Monroe claimed the United States of America, although only a fledgling nation at the time, would not interfere in European wars or internal dealings, and in turn, expected Europe to stay out of the affairs of the New World.

Considering that this nation was not yet 50 years old this would be seen as presumptuous, but the Wikipedia summary missed a key distinction that Monroe specified:

With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere.

While the idea that the United States at that time could interfere with internal European affairs was laughable this was still a world in which proximity was of paramount importance and this “fledgling nation” had already shown that it could – because of distances – become a serious thorn in the side of one of Europe’s most powerful nations. I’m sure that despite the audacity of the statement the powers of Europe were only too pleased to have the United States promise not to interfere with their existing colonies.

What I wish regarding the Monroe Doctrine is that we would remember two other forgotten parts of it:

In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. (emphasis added)

This should not be interpreted as being limited to European powers – it should also apply to out treatment of the rest of the world. Unfortunately throughout the last half century it not only comports with but in fact has been our de facto policy to interfere. In contrast we should be able to say today that:

Our policy, in regard to {other nations} . . . is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations . . .

In case that is not perfectly clear to anyone I would say “hint, hint – think Honduras.” Instead of denouncing the removal of a dictatorial president we should treat the interim (read de facto) president as the legitimate leader of the country. Our relations with that nation should be no different today than they were last week (when their government was less secure than it is today).

Tags documents, history, Honduras, international

culture

The Star Spangled Banner

Francis Scott Key witnessed a battle in 1814 during the War of 1812 as a captive on a British naval ship. He was so inspired by what he witnessed that he wrote the Star Spangled Banner which was eventually be adopted as our national anthem.

Today the song is often sung as an artistic piece in ways that ignore any patriotic meaning associated with it. It makes me wonder how many people still recognize the feelings of love for his country that Key was capturing in his poem. As I was looking at this I realized that I had never noticed the third verse – I don’t think I’ve ever heard it sung.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I suspect that Key had heard British sailors boasting that they would wipe America out of existence during that war before they began the attack. Considering the power of the British navy at that time he might well have expected them to succeed – no wonder then that he was so moved when he saw that the flag still flew over Fort McHenry after the bombardment. Personally I think that anyone who cannot recognize the power of that song and the love of country that it conveys should not bother to participate in the political process because without that love of country we are certain to make poor political decisions.

Tags documents, history, liberty, patriotism, war

General

Constitutional Amendment 12

Post author By David
Post date June 17, 2009
No Comments on Constitutional Amendment 12

After five presidential elections in which the second choice for president became the vice president, the nation decided to alter the presidential elections with the Twelfth Amendment. Prior to this amendment it was common for the president and the vice president to stand in opposition to each other as the strongest candidates in the election. I suspect that the resulting tension when they were then supposed to work as part of the same administration is why John Adams called the vice presidency:

the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived

Perhaps if the nation had miraculously not developed a party system this amendment would not have been necessary:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. (strikout portion was altered in the 20th amendment)

No longer was the president chosen and then paired with his strogest rival. Based on this amendment the president and vice president were chosen separately and simultaneously. Our present system of parties creating presidential tickets to specify who they prefer for each position and of presidential candidates generally choosing their running mates with very little interference (although they undoubtedly get lots of advice in the process) is neither mandated nor forbidden by the Constitution.

Tags Constitution, documents, history

General

George Washington’s Farewell Address

Post author By David
Post date June 16, 2009
4 Comments on George Washington’s Farewell Address

I have always had great respect for George Washington, but in the cannon of political doctrine his Farewell Address should be considered equal to the doctrine of the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament and the prophecy in the book of Revelation in the New Testament. Washington himself boils down the topics of his address as follows:

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, . . . I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; (emphasis added)

This was Washington’s final effort to publicly influence the future direction of his beloved country before he could finally retire as he had privately wanted to do for years. He starts by reminding the nation – then and now – of the nature of its birth:

I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. (emphasis added)

Notice that he does not recommend or propose that we should establish similar constitutions for others, but that we should preserve our own constitution so that others would desire to adopt such a constitution for themselves.

Tags change congress, documents, Elevated, foreign policy, history, parties